1) The archer scenario shows the specificity of the information of arrows hitting a target. It was the FIRST analogy used, to my knowledge, to show the initiator's intentions when he proposed the concept of CSI.

You're missing the point Jerry. The analogy fails because it doesn't actually demonstrate a requirement of specificity. There in lies the problem. It's basically a circular analogy - it relies upon the assumption of specificity to try to show that specificity is required.

Quote

And can you get off the "rebuttle to evolution", genetic memory, biological compounds...

No, I can't. You see, those things are part of the reason your claims are erroneous.

Quote

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing out meaningless data...I gave you actual calculations...where are all those mathematicians that were crowding that guy in another post....LOL...I calculated CSI in an organism. To attempt to pretend I didn't is simply intellectual dishonesty although I will withhold judgement on the latter for another time.

Sorry Jerry, but I don't see it. I've gone back through the thread and see nothing that even remotely looks like a calculation of the CSI of an organism. Feel free to reference the specific calculation in your response.

I also don't see a calculation of the 'CSI' of an organism. I just see some unsubstantiated assertions about probabilities and other irrelevant stuff, and avoidance of relevant questions.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27